The Rest of the Story???

To contact us Click HERE
On August 17, 2012 -- eleven (11) days before the election results were known -- three members of the 2011/12 board held a “resolution meeting” and voted to purchase a new loader based on specific financing terms -- $20K down, 36 months at 3% interest. They also gave the former president authority to proceed with the purchase with delivery no later than Oct. 1. All of this information was posted on the “official” FPLOA website. The former president signed a purchase order on 8/24 – four (4) days before the election was complete. With the change in leadership and committees, the vendor was instructed by the new president and the new chairman of the RAC NOT to deliver the loader. However, it was delivered on 9/29/12. To my knowledge, no one has admitted responsibility for this. When notified about the delivery, Bunn and I asked Barth not to accept it or sign for it; but she did.  Even though the loader had already been delivered; after reviewing the finances and the budget, the RAC asked the vendor if they would be willing to allow us to lease the loader instead of finalizing the purchase. They agreed to allow us to do so and the terms were presented at the 10/6 board meeting -- along with the majority recommendation from the RAC to lease instead of purchase. The motion to lease failed because the vote was 2 to 2 (Bunn & Wilson voting “yes” to lease; Barth and Waters voting “no”). Therefore, by default, the previous board’s decision determined the prescribed course of action -- purchase the loader as per the agreed-upon financing terms.I’ve already explained what happened after that in my most recent editorial – “Left Out!!”  Once the vendor looked at the most current association financial reports, they REVISED the purchase agreement -- increasing the down-payment to $68,800 (more than 3 times the original down-payment) and extended the terms to 48 months at 0% interest along with a deadline of 10/24 to accept the revised terms or they would be withdrawn. The president was out of town. No motion was made, no second, no discussion and no vote was taken.  However, without my knowledge (or Bunn’s) Atkins and Waters signed the contract with the REVISED purchase terms on 10/24 and the park manager and current president (via fax) authorized the release of funds on 10/25. After-the-fact, Bunn and I discovered what had happened.  Even though the results would have probably been the same, I am opposed to action being taken this way.  I believe every director should have been given an opportunity to vote – yeah or nay – about a REVISED financing contract and I think the Treasurer should have known what was happening (and how it happened) PRIOR to the release of an additional $48,800 of FPLOA funds. There is no doubt I was “left out” and I do find it “an alarming precedent”. You can make up your own mind.